Short Wave - The Good and the Bad of TV Forensics

Episode Date: February 18, 2022

Raychelle Burks is a forensic chemist and an associate professor at American University. She's also a big fan of murder mysteries. Today, we talk pop culture forensics with Raychelle and what signs to look for to know whether or not a tv crime show is getting the science right. (ENCORE)What else bothers you about TV accuracy? E-mail the show at [e-mail]. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

Tell me if this sounds familiar. You're kicking back at the end of a long day watching your favorite TV show. When suddenly you notice that they get a major scientific fact totally wrong. It stings when a show we love covers a topic we know a lot about and completely botches it. This happens often to Rachelle Burks with crime television shows. She's a chemistry professor at American University and a forensics expert. Rachel knows when shows get the forensics wrong and when they get it right. Today we close out the week featuring some of our favorite black scientists with an episode from the archives. Rachel talks with former shortwave host Maddie Safaya about some famous crime show scenes and exposes the real science behind the television magic.

Enjoy. You're listening to Shortwave from NPR. Today, Rachel Burks is a chemistry professor. or, as she says in her Twitter bio, hashtag Chemistry Blackademic in the Ivory Tower. But way back when? I wanted to be a lawyer when I was little. Little grade school, Rachelle, wasn't that interested in science. I was like a little Alex P. Keaton kid, a briefcase, little ribbon around the neck, you know, blouse.

And I used to go to the library every Saturday and read law books. I was a really fun kid. Yeah, it sounds like it. But then, on a lot of kids. an eighth grade school trip to Washington, D.C., some folks from the FBI introduced Rachel to a field of science she had never heard of before, forensic science. And all of a sudden, science seemed like a pretty good idea. Once I saw it could be useful, like it could be applied. I just hadn't made that connection before and be used to, you know, solve crimes and things.

Then I just became like a whole, you know, forensic science, crime, chemistry, just nut. So that's kind of really what got me into it is that school trip. The power of school trips, people? After that trip, she talked with her grandmother and her mom, and they introduced Rachelle to a super fun genre, one that combined her love of forensic science with her love of pop culture. I heard you love a good old-fashioned murder mystery.

Ooh, I do so much. So much. Agatha Christie, murder she wrote, led her to Law and Order and N-C-I-S, and made her the murder mystery nerd she is now. I'm Maddie Safia. Today on the show, Pop Culture Forensics with Forensic Chemist, Rachel Burks. We'll give you the good, the bad, and the real bad.

I'm looking at you, CSI. So we've got forensic chemist Rachel Burks with us to talk about forensics in pop culture. And before her latest gig in academia, she worked in a crime lab. She's even been pulled in to consult on TV shows like Madam Secretary, which will get to a bit of, later. Okay, what are some of the telltale signs that a show or a movie is getting forensics

right? Like, if I'm watching a show, what am I looking for? You hardly ever see crime scene people. They're not any of the main characters. And they might be like a person in a background and you're like, what's that person doing over in the corner? And, you know, they might be like, Bob, you've found anything? No. Like, you know, or like a very kind of throw away, kind of a law and order scenario where every once in a while somebody would pop up and be like, here's the toxicology report. But it's very kind of in the background. Your job is to provide some level of technical, scientific skill and report out.

But you're not going around investigating, like interviewing suspects. Right. So if the forensic science people are like in the plot, investigating people, you're like, that's not real. That's not how that works. Yeah. What are some of your favorite shows that are doing? doing this right? Like, just give us a list of, like, if you're looking for decent,

forensic representation, what are some of those shows? You know, the classic line order, you know, it's tricky because the CSIs are coming from such an interesting place. I'm not going to recommend any of those. Yeah, okay. I, you know, again, I would say something even like the wire. Okay. Where, again, everything, it kind of pops up in the ancillary, right? Something comes up or you realize how important it is because it hasn't been done well or it has in the outcome of a trial. And any kind of shortcuts are because who wants to stare at somebody doing paperwork for 20 hours out of World War weekend. Yeah, yeah, that's true. I feel like if I just sell somebody crunching data for four hours, I'd be like, this show is doing it right, but also I don't like

it. Yeah, exactly. So even though like the CSIs, you know, and I love me some CSI, Miami, because, wow, what a dream. For some reason of all the CSIs, that one was just like, yeah. Well, we got to, I mean, we got to talk about it a little bit. So let's talk a little bit of trash. What are some of the shows that are the worst offenders in terms of bad forensic science? One of the ones I saw, and it was the CSI Miami episode,

is every database ever that you could ever want exist, and they are all magically connected. And my favorite is that, you know, you inject something into an instrument and beep, beep, beep. FTIR results. It comes out and it's raspberry extract only produced by this manufacturer between this year and this year, and they only sell it here. This hairspray from your bathroom. It contains raspberry leaf extract. And I'm like, what? What?

Long odds. Okay, okay, I got one more for you. This one is from CSI, New York, one of your personal favorites. The image should still reflect off my cornea. Cornial imaging. Let's magnify it, see if we can get a reflection off her eye. Okay, magnification times 100 for stars. Times 100.

Good, good. Reverse the image. That's the best reflection of what she was seeing that we've got. Yes, it is. Oh my. Like, I love that scene so much. I mean, you know, the whole time I'm just thinking of that lyric, flipping and reverse it from Missy. I always, I'm just like, yes, I want you to magnify it 100. I want you to flip it, want you to reverse it, and enhance. And that's the last thing she saw before she was murdered.

Okay, so what are some of the other signs that a show is doing forensic science really badly? Things happen instantaneously. Yeah. People are too cute. No, I'm just kidding. But, like, you know, again, part of the scene is that they should really be in comfortable shoes and clothes. Their hair should be back. And why are they touching everything barehanded?

Like, contamination is a big issue. But I think also the main thing is with forensic science, like with any analytical thing, is that it comes down to the people. If a show is highlighting what a computer can do, the computer says this, the computer says that. What is this? Star Trek, which I love. but people make decisions. People write algorithms, and a person is going to identify a sample, a chemical, a person. They do the work.

So whenever I see a show that's like the computer said, XYZ, I'm like, did they, though? Because that's the abdication of responsibility. And that's the scary part of the job. So that's the part that always, you know, sets off my spidey sense is that does that mean that the machine is going to take the blame. Right. You know, I hadn't really thought about that with these shows. So you're saying, like, as a person that has worked in crime labs, like, that's a

scary part is because it really is your decision. Yeah. I mean, and again, its decision is based on a technique and a methodology and your training, your expertise, your knowledge. But it comes down to the buck stops at the analyst, not the machine. Gotcha. I tell the machine what to do. So you've done.

consulting on shows, you know, like Madam Secretary, which is a cool show. What was that like? What did they want you to kind of bring to the table for them? So they wanted to think about, okay, how would you commit this kind of almost a mass poisoning? Okay. And your chemistry right in there. Yes. And also, you know, I designed systems to detect those things. Sure. So because of that, I have to know how in an environment, in a crowd, in a room, how that would work. And, you know, with nerve agents, with chemical weapons like sarin, like Novichick, it doesn't have to be high tech. It can be very fast and very lethal.

Peter, are you all right? You're bleeding. So my motto wasn't like, well, that's totally not, you know. But it was more like, okay, how close can we get? This was police have a high degree of confidence. The chemical agent was sarin. Colorless, odorless, highly soluble. The entire UN Security Council just gone?

So they're asking you, like, help us make this, like, scientifically as realistic as possible within this setting. Yes, but also saying, and this is how it would look when they found the people, how the investigators would be dressed. Okay. Because if you were investigating and you suspect, given the context, that that's a chemical weapon, you're not going to send it. your crime scene team. They're not going to be like a CSI where everyone's glammed up, right? Yeah. No, they're in full personal protection equipment, oxygen tanks maybe. Yeah. Right, because you don't, you know, you got to protect these people.

But they are some really fast color tests that would give them a real quick answer. Right. And again, it was, in my mind, it was how can we make the story work but still sneak in a bit of real science and real kind of forensic science. Is it possible for you to enjoy watching these crime and forensic-filled TV shows and movies, or has your knowledge of the actual practice ruined it for you? No, I love it. And, you know, it's kind of like, is it a good story?

And I think that you might almost be like, not a hate watch, but again, you're almost watching it in two minds. Right. The mind of the fan of the genre, the super fan of the who, done it and all of that. And then I also have, like, my scientists have, and I think if the story is good, the dual mind is totally, actually, it's actually fun. Because I tuck those moments away, and I use a lot of pop culture in my classrooms and in talks, and it's always a great way to connect with students and audience members, because if you love a genre, you love it, warts and all,

Right? And that gives us common ground to say, we love it, right? Or it wasn't that bananas. And then we can really have a good conversation. So I obviously have saved my most important question for last. Who would you want to play you in a murder mystery movie? Oh, Angela Bassett. Boom, right off the top. Why not? What can't she do? All my friends would be like, you know, you're not going to get, you know. Angela Bassett, if you're out there, you've got a fan. All right, Dr. Rachel Brooks. Thank you for your brain today. Thank you.

So much fun. Today's episode was produced by Britt Hansen, edited by Viet Le, and fact-checked by Emily Vaughn. And a very special thanks to Alex Dreuenskis for the sound engineering help. I'm Maddie Safaya. Thanks for listening to Shortwave from NPR.